If the Republicans were smart, they would be digging up all the Democrat quotes that Iraq would be better off under Saddam.

Apparently the people dancing in the streets don't agree with their assessment.

You think Dole on Tim Russert would have the balls to equate the Democrats pining for the return of Saddam as equivalent to saying Germany was better off with Hitler in power.
-----------------------------------------

Democrat Senator provlaims Saddam best to lead Iraq.....

Iraq Would Be Better With Saddam

Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat went a step further. He says the world would be better off today if the United States had never invaded Iraq — even if it means Saddam Hussein would still be running Iraq.

Also, Howard Dean, the leader of the Democrat Party proclaimed Iraqis better off under a tyrannical dictator that sent millions of them to their deaths, rather then having a Democrat government.

Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman who was the hero of his party's anti-war wing before his gaffe-prone 2004 presidential candidacy crashed and burned in Iowa, still doesn't think the Iraqis are better off with dictator Saddam Hussein out of power and in prison.

And another liberal supporter of the Democrat party, whose former network CNN has gotten in bed with the Islamic terrorist has proclaimed the Iraqis that survived Saddams rule, who weren't dead or forced to flee the coutry were better off.

Associated Press reports today that CNN founder Ted Turner lectured at Kansas State University and echoed Howard Dean's line as a presidential candidate: "Media mogul Ted Turner said Monday that Iraq is 'no better off' following the U.S.-led invasion that ousted dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003."

That's to prepare you for the moonbats today. Now that Saddam is going to "hang" out in some Baghdad Square for a few hours, I'm sure his verdict will be spun as just another Rovian October in November Surprise.http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3323718,00.html>
Saddam Hussein sentenced to death

For a more serious (plodding ponderous) note, I think that Fitzgerald had already completely capitulated on the memory issue in his initial response. Instead of arguing that the expert was hawking junk science, he argued that everybody already knows from common sense that what the memory expert is hawking is true.

In other words, a reasonably common-sense endowed investigator would take into account the most common memory failures that Libby (and other witnesses) might have been having, and not have been successfully been misled by, for example, an attribution error that caused a large inaccuracy in the timeline. So whatever obstruction happened, it wasn't in fact a result of Libby's (either innocent or criminal) deficits of accuracy, but of the investigators' lack of common sense.

In fact, in this case, the Court believes that cross-examination will be a powerful tool for the defense to challenge the confidence of the government's witnesses about their memories, just as it was for the government in its cross-examination of Dr. Loftus. For example, the Court has no doubt that the defendant, during the cross-examination of Tim Russert, will challenge the confidence he presumably will ascribe to the accuracy of his recollection of the conversation he had with the defendant, especially since there are no notes (either taken by Mr. Russert or the defendant) memorializing their conversation. Thus, even if there is some value to be derived from Dr. Bjork's testimony, effective cross-examination of the principal players will be far more valuable to the defendant's case than testimony on abstract principles of memory and cognition.

the Court has no doubt that the defendant, during the cross-examination of Tim Russert, will challenge the confidence he presumably will ascribe to the accuracy of his recollection of the conversation he had with the defendant

... there is no way Russert can be credible, trying to recall a part of a conversation that in fact never happened, therefor it will be easy to discredit Russert's testimony. Can you say "goodbye" to counts 2 and 4?

Walter--cboldt and I have been going round about that for a while.
Gnereally, successful defendants are not entitled to attorneys fees. The old Independent Counsel statute, now expired, provided them for those whose cases were dismissed before trial or who prevailed in substantial part at trial.

I thought I read that was carried over to special prosecutions, but I can't find any evidence of that.

I have tried repeatedly, but everytime I get into the search something freezes my computer (no joke). I think one of the key cites has something that does it.
But just as JF is waiting for his (not Swift) boat to come in, I'll keep looking to see if there is such a provision anywhere.

It would remove any penalties that attach to conviction. Pardons can be pre-emptive too, see Ford's pardon of Nixon.

I'm surprised President Bush didn't step out in front of this last year, right after the indictment was handed down. Cheney has to have made the case that the prosecution of Libby is nothing but a partisan with hunt that Fitz should never have brought.

Anyway, Fitz's case is weak, so talking about pardon is probing a solution to an unlikely problem.

The only saving to a pre-emptive pardon at this point would be to reduce any possible payout for Libby's legal defense and the known payout for the prosecution - and since the case is near done anyway, it's probably wise to let it run to the inevitable acquittal than to risk political fallout from granting a pardon. Better to let the people (jury) decide, than have the President short-circuit the process.

-- "I thought I read that was carried over to special prosecutions, but I can't find any evidence of that." --

First, seeing as how it was certainly part of the law for a long time, the presumption should be that it's still there. Second, there isn't any substantive difference between being the victim of an IC vs. being the victim of an SP. Either way, Congress recognized that the only fair thing to do is reimburse defendants who prevail at trial. Prevailing at trial is proof that that charge should never have been brought, and that's clearly the case here, because even the government admits it can't make the charge the investigation was aiming to find.

Typical. You folks seem incapable of discussing anything without squawking, "But Clinton, but clinton ... " I wouldn't be surprised if you can't chat about the weather without invoking the terrible name
of that old bogeyman lurking under your bed.

Of course. If a Democrat does a 'bad thing' then no one may mention a 'Republican' doing a 'bad thing.'

Clinton is your "Get Out of Jail Free" card, isn't he?

And has it ever occurred to you that simply because someone (me, for example) criticizes a Republican that it doesn't mean he or she (or me, for example) does not also criticize the Democrat counterpart?

Can you not imagine that there are people in the U.S., your fellow citizens, who understand that both your party and theirs are hopelessly corrupt?

Mr. Clinton faithfully carried on the policies of the Reagan/Bush administrations. Mr. Bush (the youngers) has continued, and amplified, the policies of the Clinton administration. (I am thinking specifically of foregin policies.)

It's more fun teaming up against the likes of anonymous and semanticleo. Plus, classic cboldt is always on tap in the archives, for the senitmental. I'm not sure if it gets better or goes rotten with age, LOL!!!

-- "the terrible name of that old bogeyman lurking under your bed." --

Off topic, and don't want to hijack the thread, but my bogeyman was named "Ajax," and he lived in the walls. Weird, huh? I don't know if "Ajax" was young or old, but the thought of him used to scare the bejeezus out of me.

Has anyone on this forum ever heard of Pastor Haggard before the other day? I know I had not. Does anyone, besides anonymous, care what his sex habits are? I know I don't give a sh!t. Why is this guy considered important and why, if at all, should anyone, anyone care?

In fact, in this case, the Court believes that cross-examination will be a powerful tool for the defense to challenge the confidence of the government's witnesses about their memories, just as it was for the government in its cross-examination of Dr. Loftus. For example, the Court has no doubt that the defendant, during the cross-examination of Tim Russert, will challenge the confidence he presumably will ascribe to the accuracy of his recollection of the conversation he had with the defendant, especially since there are no notes (either taken by Mr. Russert or the defendant) memorializing their conversation. Thus, even if there is some value to be derived from Dr. Bjork's testimony, effective cross-examination of the principal players will be far more valuable to the defendant's case than testimony on abstract principles of memory and cognition.

This to me, a layperson, seems like a gigantic bombshell. The judge all but says to Fitz, you've lost. You have no credible witnesses left. Am I reading too much into this?

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

Seriously, Pastor Haggard (not Haggis) is a well-known homophobe and a leader in the anti-gay movement in Colorado. The good man of God has also participated in many conference calls with the White House. A man who has the ear of Mr. Bush and his #1 henchman Mr. Rove is a man of no small importance.

Jones obviously had his own motive for what he did and how he went about it - but that's beside the point, IMO. It won't have the effect he and Rogers and the others think it will, so let them enjoy their "victory" and gloat - I think the opponents of gay marriage will be more determined than ever, now.

I think that's a shame too. I have many gay friends. If everyone knew the gay people I know, they would revise their thinking about much of this conflict. Unfortunately, they never get to know normal gay people, because they are so put off by these so-called "activists."

-- "This to me, a layperson, seems like a gigantic bombshell. The judge all but says to Fitz, you've lost. You have no credible witnesses left. Am I reading too much into this?" --

Fitz is deaf to what Judge Walton says to him. His on a partisan witch hunt, and is trying to save his own hide. It won't work.

You're reading the note just right. Russert will be demolished on cross examination (I'm really looking forward to that. I think Russert is a pasty-faced back-stabbing dim-witted lying weasel), and the jury will see right through the entire case. Acquittal is certain, but Fitz won't give up this show trial - he's making too much money from it.

Dick Cheney told George Stephanopoulos that he would "probably not" appear before Congress if subpoenaed.

It is still amazing how things change over time. Remember when Clinton was subpoenaed by Starr? He was refusing to appear and the Republicans thought that was serious:

Top Republicans Sunday warned President Bill Clinton that refusing to honor independent counsel Ken Starr's grand jury subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky case could have serious political consequences — including the possibility of impeachment.

"I think it would be disastrous. It is basically saying he is above the law, he doesn't have to comply with the law," said Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma on NBC's "Meet The Press." "Everybody else in America has to comply with subpoenas (while) he's saying he wouldn't. … I don't think that would be sustainable."

"(Clinton) has an obligation as the highest official in this government, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country. If he doesn't do that, I think public opinion would turn overwhelmingly against him," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah on CBS's "Face The Nation."

2.1% are "fundamentalist" or Pentacostal with maybe another 0.5% added in if you consider Assemblies of God. And yet, the left seems to be inordinately concerned with this very small number who identify with these ultra-conservative religious groups. I don't get it myself. Yes, they get on religious TV and they have these huge mega-churches, but everyone belongs to one of a handful of these big churches and that's the sum total. Me, I'd rather attend a church where I know everyone, than be anonymous in one of these big places. Seems we should be far more concerned about the BILLION PLUS Muslims. Did you watch "Obsession" last night, if not try to catch it today. And wake up to the real threat, which isn't some backwoods fundamentalist snake charmer.

Neocons, National Review & the AEI — evading responsibility for their war

By: Glenn Greenwald @ 12:51 PM - PST

Finally forced by reality and public opinion to confess what a disaster their invasion of Iraq has been, most neoconservatives are desperately seeking to heap the blame on George Bush, Don Rumsfeld, military leaders, the American media — anyone but themselves. Others are trying, even more despicably, to blame the Iraqis for the gross failure of the Epic Neoconservative War.

But one of the most vocal warmongers — Michael Ledeen, the "Freedom Scholar" at the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Contributing Editor of National Review – is desperately attempting, like a good Stalinist, to re-write history by blatantly lying and claiming that he opposed the invasion of Iraq, even though he was a vocal advocate of it. Yesterday, at National Review's Corner, Ledeen wrote:

"I do not feel "remorseful," since I had and have no involvement with our Iraq policy. I opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place and I advocated—as I still do—support for political revolution in Iran as the logical and necessary first step in the war against the terror masters."

Ledeen's claim that he "opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place" cannot be described in any way other than as an outright lie. Ledeen gave an August, 2002 interview to Jamie Glazov at David Horowitz's Front Page and repeatedly urged the invasion of Iraq, including:

Question #2: Okay, well if we are all so certain about the dire need to invade Iraq, then when do we do so?

Ledeen: Yesterday.

And Ledeen even wrote an August, 2002 article — in National Review – devoted to urging what he called "the desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein." In sum, Ledeen was a repeated and vocal advocate for invading Iraq.

-- "So, the next time you receive a subpoena, tell the court you decline to "cooperate."" --

What is that, a threat? Maybe you didn't notice, but I'm s simple lumberjack posting on a chatboard, I'm not the President or Vice-president of the United States, nor am I on their staff, nor am I at risk for "political ramifications."

Wait, maybe you are saying I could be impeached. Well bring it on baby! Bring it on!!

No, I think you are being elitist and disparaging when you keep lumping all religious people in with these ultra-conservative groups that make up barely a blip on the national or international religious scene. Their beliefs and practices are their own and they have every right to believe what they want and to practice the way they want as long as no one gets physically hurt. And why, all because some gay activists with major psychological hangups about being gay try to foist their prejudices onto the rest of us and then blame groups most of us have never heard of and have no association with for their own misery.

I grew up as a Presbyterian and I was taught to "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's." I was taught not to confuse or conflate the two. From a religious point of view, I understand where the idea of homosexuality being against God's natural law can be found, but from a secular point of view, I know that a person's sexual orientation has virtually nothing to do with whether they are a good person in all other aspects of their lives. I see far more stigmatizing of gays going on by other gays than I've seen in my whole life by self-identified religious people. The hypocrisy in the activist gay movement is noxious. The only ones I see responding to them are those who claim not to be religious at all while they blame it all on the other side.

Do Dobson, Perkins, Falwell, Robertson, et al. represent ultra-conservative groups? Yes, they do. Are the groups they represent also religious? Yes, they are. These men also can be said to represent the backbone of the Republican base.

They are all in your party, and have a lot of power within it. If you don't like it, get them out of your party.

... "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's." ...

This statement, attributed to the legendary Hebrew preacher we know as Jesus, is commonly misunderstood as a plea for the separation of church and state. Gore Vidal has pointed out the more likely interpretation of recent Biblical scholars that the statement was intended as a radical warning to the Roman Empire: Rome/Caesar could have whatever it wanted except for Israel and the Jews because they were "God's."

-- "Do Dobson, Perkins, Falwell, Robertson, et al. represent ultra-conservative groups? Yes, they do. Are the groups they represent also religious? Yes, they are. These men also can be said to represent the backbone of the Republican base." --

Pretty much the same as Church of Kos and the Satanists representing the backbone of the DEM base. So what?

P.S. "ultra-conservative" sounds like a name for toothpaste or laundry detergent. What's with the super-superlatives?

Gore Vidal has pointed out the more likely interpretation of recent Biblical scholars that the statement was intended as a radical warning to the Roman Empire: Rome/Caesar could have whatever it wanted except for Israel and the Jews because they were "God's."

Ah yes, the idiocies of the Jesus seminar are proving as hard to kill as Christ himself.

Kenneth Adelman: “The most dispiriting and awful moment of the whole administration was the day that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to [former C.I.A. director] George Tenet, General Tommy Franks, and [Coalition Provisional Authority chief] Jerry [Paul] Bremer—three of the most incompetent people who’ve ever served in such key spots. And they get the highest civilian honor a president can bestow on anyone! That was the day I checked out of this administration. It was then I thought, There’s no seriousness here, these are not serious people.

“Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I’m getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, ‘Go design the campaign to do that.’ I had no responsibility for that.”

Ah yes, the idiocies of the Jesus seminar are proving as hard to kill as Christ himself.

Posted by: Barney Frank | November 05, 2006 at 02:09 PM

According to 'the Gospels' it was remarkably easy to kill the legendary preacher. In the Christian texts, Pilate (the Roman procurator) expresses surprise that the crucifixion killed the fellow so quickly.

Unlike yourself, I can at least be certain that Mr. Vidal has actually read 'the Bible.' And, by the way, read more carefully: I wrote that Mr. Vidal pointed out the interpretation of biblical scholars; I did not write that it was Mr. Vidal's interpretation.